Site Supporter

I am 43 years old and unmarried. I could never under any circumstances change my last name if I were to marry.

It has nothing to do with my professional life and I have a big one. People in many different school districts know who I am. But you know what? That's unimportant. Irrelevant to the discussion. It wouldn't matter if I were a homeless person.

It has nothing to do with my being published. I have been published professionally. That's also irrelevant. Completely. It wouldn't matter if I were an illiterate person.

It has to do with the fact that my last name is who I am. It's me. My last name dictates my persona and my life. It's not a banner. It's not a flag I wave. It's my name.

I do NOT believe in a woman "going from being someone's daughter to someone's husband". That is so insulting to me. I can't believe people actually believe this.

I do believe that while a woman is a minor child and teen, she is under the authority of BOTH of her parents. And I believe that when a woman is married that she is under the authority of a Godly, leading husband.

But that has NOTHING to do with "going from being someone's daughter to someone's husband". That's such a profane statement.

The ONLY way that I could ever change who I am is if a man I were to marry told me that it would hurt his feelings and embarrass him if I did not. In that case, I would grit my teeth and do for him and never bring it up again.

If he were to tell me that I "had" to do it or that it was "expected" of me, I would not marry him. Period.

When women get married at a very young age, they don't think anything about it. We all wrote the last names of our boyfriends on our notebooks in high school. I did it, too. All the time. We thought it was cute. We giggled incessantly about it.

But at 43, when your last name means everything about who you are, when it IS who you are, and people expect to just wipe it away, as if you never existed, that's a hard pill to swallow.

And to read about fellow believers who believe that your maiden name is nothing more than your father's nametag that you "borrow" until another man comes to stamp his new name on you like a branded cow is staggering.

Each individual couple makes this decision BY THEMSELVES. It's not your business nor mine. I don't care if women change their names or not. It's up to them and their husband-to-be.

I will leave you with this.

My name is my name. It is not a "temporary" nametag that my father gave me permission to use until someone else came along.

My name is my name. It is who I am. It is me.

I have my father's name, but that is no WHO I AM.

I may be a wife one day. I might even change my name. But that won't even be WHO I AM.

I am who I am right now. And right now, my name is MY name.

I don't expect anybody to understand that in the least. You won't change my mind and I can tell that I'm not going to change yours, but if you feel the need to vent at me, don't worry about hurting my feelings. You won't.

When my husband and I were discussing marriage, he was kind enough to say, if you want to keep your current name, it is all right. I decided to take his name. However, you should see what my legal name is name: First name, Middle Name, Maiden Name, First husband's name, Current Husband's name.

I didn't want any trouble with driver's license, passport, retirement and other funds. However, I usually use First Name and Current Husband's name. It really depends on to whom I am talking and what name they remember me by, but I always use my current husband's name.

Originally posted by PastorGreg: Keeping the maiden name shows a complete lack of understanding of God's design for human relationships. When a girl is born, she gets her father's name because he is responsible for her care, protection, purity, provision, etc. At marriage, ALL of that duty switches to the husband, thus she takes his name indicating, yes, her submission to him, and his responsibility toward her. She is, in a very real sense, leaving her role as her father's daughter behind and assuming a new lifelong role as the helper of the man who is now her husband. She can't run home to mama and daddy if she decides her husband isn't nice enough to her, etc. To keep the father's name indicates a lack of trust of the husband to perform his duty, a lack of identification with him, or yes, perhaps a lack of submission to his authority. This is why in marriages that I perform, I still instruct the father to say, "I do," when asked, "Who gives this woman to be married to this man?" not, "her mother and I do." That last phrase is just a concession to feminism and again shows a lack of understanding of why the tradition exists - it demonstrates a Biblical principle.

Click to expand...

Well said Pastor Greg. This is how I feel also. I disagree that a 'name' is who we are. We are children of the King!

I really doubt that our earthly names are written in the Book. Jesus gave the apostles different names at their conversion. I believe he was giving them the name that was written in the Book.

It's kind of comical, but our pastor was speaking on this subject last Sunday. He kind of went off on a tangent, just a little, and made the remark that, since we are all joint heirs with Christ that he thinks we might have his name. He then said that his name might be written "Jeff Christ" in the Book. There was some chuckling and some head shaking. I think he was a little embarrassed afterwards. His thoughts don't always exactly come out right, and he said later that this was one of those times.

I don't know what my name is in the Book, but I know whatever it is it will be perfect.

Originally posted by PastorGreg: Keeping the maiden name shows a complete lack of understanding of God's design for human relationships. When a girl is born, she gets her father's name because he is responsible for her care, protection, purity, provision, etc. At marriage, ALL of that duty switches to the husband, thus she takes his name indicating, yes, her submission to him, and his responsibility toward her. She is, in a very real sense, leaving her role as her father's daughter behind and assuming a new lifelong role as the helper of the man who is now her husband. She can't run home to mama and daddy if she decides her husband isn't nice enough to her, etc. To keep the father's name indicates a lack of trust of the husband to perform his duty, a lack of identification with him, or yes, perhaps a lack of submission to his authority. This is why in marriages that I perform, I still instruct the father to say, "I do," when asked, "Who gives this woman to be married to this man?" not, "her mother and I do." That last phrase is just a concession to feminism and again shows a lack of understanding of why the tradition exists - it demonstrates a Biblical principle.

Click to expand...

I do like that Pastor. I love to hear His Word without equivocation. And on this particular subject He has shown you His interpretation. It’s when we do our on interpreting we dirty up our walking shoes.

Site Supporter

Originally posted by dianetavegia: Terri, God bless you for your faithfulness in all these areas. I don't think you did anything 'dishonoring' and my heart breaks for what you've endured in your short life.

Click to expand...

Amen, Diane! Well stated. Your situation is exceptional, Terri, and God has given you his grace and will honor your sacrifice. BTW, I find it hard to picture a situation that better pictures submission than your caring for your husband the way that you do. God bless you!

Site Supporter

Originally posted by donnA: A wife taking her husbands last name is not mandated in the bible, nor even mentioned. it is a cultural thing, and since it violates no scripture I see no problem with it.
The problem how ever seems to be with noseybodies who make assumptions about people without evidence to back up their assumptions. They should mind their own business, not someone elses.

Click to expand...

Why the anger? Anyone has a right to address the topic of the thread, which was whether the wife should take the husbands last name. If you disagree with someone's opinion you certainly have the right to say so, but to call names because you disagree is slightly childish and does not lend any credibility to your position.

Re 2:17 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes I will give some of the hidden manna to eat. And I will give him a white stone, and on the stone a new name written which no one knows except him who receives it." '

Re 3:12 He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. And I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. And I will write on him My new name.

Since we are the Bride of Christ, we will take on His name for us in heaven. Taking a husband's name here on earth is symbolic of that new name in heaven. IMHO.

Pastor Greg,
I was not angry when I posted, and I fail to see how you can accuse me of such. I said nothing out of the way. Who on this board did I call what name? Please prove your accusations.
I do not think people need to know all of anyone elses business. Do you?
1Thes 4:11a
That you also aspire to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business

Your right everyone has a right to state their own opinion, and I did so, in a civil manner, attacking no one, calling no other BBer any names as accused. And as I stated my opinion, your attack9childish? where?) on me seems to be becasue of my opinion,(no a woman does not have to take her husbands name if she doesn't want too, and that people should do as scripture says, mind their own business).
When people feel they need to know the business of another it is usually the first steps of gossip, If it doesn't concern you personally then why else would you need to know it?
1Ti.1:5-6
1Ti. 5:13
I have attacked, or bashed no one on this board or on this thread. Yet you come out of no where bashing me, calling me names. I hope your right to do so made you feel better.

I don't think a woman not taking her husband name has anything to do with submission, since it isn't biblical anyway. For those who think there is something wrong with not taking your husbands name, please show biblical evidence.
If you have the right to take your husbands name, so not another woman have the right not to, since she is not violating scripture. Taking the husbands name is cultural, and relatively modern(prehaps someone would search and find when this pratice started).
And yes, your name is who you are, look at your pay check, your bank account, your medical records, your tax return.
You have more then one identity.
daughter/son, wife/husband, mother/father, CHRISTIAN, pastor, taxi driver, teacher, accountant, golfer, farmer, street cleaner, tennis player.

Psalms 45:10Listen, O daughter, Consider and incline your ear; Forget your own people also, and your father's house; 11 So the King will greatly desire your beauty; Because He is your Lord, worship Him. 12 And the daughter of Tyre will come with a gift; The rich among the people will seek your favor. 13 The royal daughter is all glorious within the palace; Her clothing is woven with gold. 14 She shall be brought to the King in robes of many colors; The virgins, her companions who follow her, shall be brought to You. 15 With gladness and rejoicing they shall be brought; They shall enter the King's palace. 16 Instead of Your fathers shall be Your sons, Whom You shall make princes in all the earth. 17 I will make Your name to be remembered in all generations; Therefore the people shall praise You forever and ever.

If a wife refuses to take her husbands name, is that submissiveness? However, husbands aren't supposed to be tyrants.

It took my wife a few years to change her name. She is Indonesian. In her people-group, wives don't legally change their names, and they can be called by either their husbands last name or their maiden name. "Boro Purba"--the one with the maiden name Purba. "Ibu Hudson" --Mrs. Hudson.

We didn't change her name right away because she had a visit visa for 5 years to the US in a passport with the maiden name. It was a hassle to go to the embassy, so we just left the paperwork as it was.

But when we went to the US, my wife wanted my last name on her social security card, and other paperwork. I don't remember if she got a new SS card, but she did finally get it on her passport, and I think her greencard may have 'Hudson' now. Now that we are in Indonesia, she has four names on her passport. I wish she'd gotten rid of her original middle name because it's so long "Lumongga" and used "Purba" as her middle name. That would show her maiden name and make it easier for people to see who she was if she needed to prove her identity here from records. Or else, she could have just taken Lumongga as a middle name and gotten rid of Purba.

When I married my wife, part of the deal that goes along with paying the bride-price if you are not a Batak is to take a Batak last name and adopted parents. So I became my wife's adpoted first cousin. Since it was a maternal first cousin, that's okay in Batak tradition. I've got a Batak last name which is a good ice breaker with Batak people around here.

Simon bar Jonah. Last names were such as that, Simon, son of Jonah. The sons of Zebedee is another example. House of David, etc.

Ruth 1:8 And Naomi said to her two daughters-in-law, "Go, return each to her mother's house. The Lord deal kindly with you, as you have dealt with the dead and with me. 9 The Lord grant that you may find rest, each in the house of her husband." Then she kissed them, and they lifted up their voices and wept. 10 And they said to her, "Surely we will return with you to your people." 11 But Naomi said, "Turn back, my daughters; why will you go with me? Are there still sons in my womb, that they may be your husbands? 12 Turn back, my daughters, go--for I am too old to have a husband. If I should say I have hope, if I should have a husband tonight and should also bear sons, 13 would you wait for them till they were grown? Would you restrain yourselves from having husbands? No, my daughters; for it grieves me very much for your sakes that the hand of the Lord has gone out against me!" 14 Then they lifted up their voices and wept again; and Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth clung to her. 15 And she said, "Look, your sister-in-law has gone back to her people and to her gods; return after your sister-in-law." 16 But Ruth said: "Entreat me not to leave you, Or to turn back from following after you; For wherever you go, I will go; And wherever you lodge, I will lodge; Your people shall be my people, And your God, my God. 17 Where you die, I will die, And there will I be buried. The Lord do so to me, and more also, If anything but death parts you and me." 18 When she saw that she was determined to go with her, she stopped speaking to her.

Terri, you have certainly been through a lot in your lifetime and I am glad that you had God there with you.

However, in fairness to the many woman who may be reading this. There are many, many woman who must take care of fathers and husbands. There are many women who must go to work outside the home to be sure that her children have food and clothing. In doing so, she can still be submissive to her husband.

Yes, the ideal life for some might be as you stated: I would have married a high school sweetheart, settled down, had about 6 kids, and gladly been a stay-at-home mom who homeschooled. But THAT is not what God intended for me.

But this is not always God's Plan for a woman's life. So no woman should feel guilty because her life does not fit this perfect example. I could continue with: If all women fit this plan, who would be teachers, nurses, and secretaries, and other positions that have been traditionally filled by women.